Posting Assignment #9 (due Sunday 12/11, 11:59 P.M.; comment by 11:59 Monday, 12/12) Talk to the Pope—well, anyway, talk about and around what the Pope says about reproduction and the Universe

 [last post; read it carefully]

It seemed we were unanimous that technologies like hormone birth control ('the pill') necessarily change us.  We didn't get too far into defining how, to what extent and with what outcomes—individually and collectively. 

Pope Paul VI (whose ideas align with many other religious thinkers of many creeds and denominations in the case he makes in Humanae Vitae) does not agree with some of the basic assumptions of Cultural Studies.  He believes in a fixed and unchanging 'human nature' (rather than human subjectivities that are constructed, historical and contingent).  He believes in absolute right and wrong (rather than some degree of variation relative to history and culture).  And—the central topic—he believes that love, sexuality, and family relationships should (must?) have a fixed structure.  Or we will suffer—on earth for sure, and for him: forever after.  He certainly believes in a 'forever after.'  We defined the Pope's position as anchored in Natural Law.  We suspect that many of us share some or all of these beliefs.  We suspect that many of us find them impossible—or as Robin writes: 'nonsense.' We also suspect that many of us are pretty confused, conflicted and incoherent in what we believe about these issues, trying to believe on both sides.  And if Susan Bordo is right (which she is), 'our conscious politics, social commitments, strivings for change may be undermined and betrayed by the life of our bodies' (165).

High stakes.  Clear distinctions.  Incompatible positions.  Big political consequences.  Ugly 'culture wars.'

Deal with the Pope (and all the Pope's Peeps):

1. Carve out an issue: select one claim Paul VI makes in Humanae Vitae.  Identify the paragraph (by number); quote the relevant text; explain what it means in everyday language (as if you were giving a fellow student friend a fast overview); anchor it with an illustration you create or find. 
2. Take a position on the issue: make the case for why what the Pope (and all others who share this view of things) argues has good or bad social, political, psychological, relationship, identity—and, and, and—consequences 
3. Talk to our theory and work: make sure that your post comes from, links to, uses the methods of, and generally advances the work we've done all semester. To the extent that you can use the 'history and science presented in our readings, do it.

So like what? (as anchoring illustrations)  This post engages all matters of 'human life,' 'human rights,' and 'human sexuality' even though it's based on a close, careful reading of a single anchoring philosophical document.  You'll want to work from specifics, and there are lots going around: 

• Mississippi's  'Personhood' amendment

• Ohio's 'fetal heartbeat' law

• MCCL's case against Margaret Sanger

• The U's Stem Cell Institute (and the press about it)

• Plan B (no over-the-counter for 12 year olds)

• every gay / bi / trans issue in the world

• Regions Hospital ceasing to provide abortions

• the 'gay marriage' amendment (and the press about it)

• 'rights' (gay, religious, privacy, human…)

• the 'establishment clause' (church and state)

• '2 child law' in China

Atheism vs. Traditional Religions

I had read online about Atheist groups putting up billboards against religion recently. Of course, shortly after they put up, complaints starting piling in and they were taken down. Atheists are often looked down upon by people who are members of a traditional religion, whether it be Christianity or Islam. They are thought of a hopeless or sinners who will burn forever in hell. Not many people that are atheist were raised as atheists, but many believers of religion were raised and sometimes forced to be apart of a religion. So it is no surprise people get angry when atheists insult them and the values that have been instilled upon them since they were children. Social pressure also contributes to religion in some ways. I remember in middle school, we didn't have to say the pledge of allegiance or the 'under god' phrase, but if you didn't you would've been seen as a weirdo. Of course now, people are more accepting of different views, but the large majority of the population still believes in a supreme being of one sort. When a majority disagrees with a minority, the majority usually wins. The same way blacks had to fight for their rights in the past, atheists need to stand up to opponents of their freedom to express their beliefs. However, this may be difficult because both parties are trying to sway people onto their side, usually by directly attacking their opponent. The atheist group that put up the billboard pictured above did just that, but quoted Jefferson falsely along the way.

Believers vs Non-believers is a battle that will never end. There is too much evidence as well as lack of evidence to support either side. People often will fight to the death to defend their religious beliefs. I find that odd because death is the only thing that will finally answer their questions.

Looking at Homosexuality Through the Eyes of my Father

Ever since I could grasp the idea of politics of being liberal/conservative, pro-life/pro-choice, for gay marriage/against gay marriage, I have identified my habitus to be more "left-leaning". I believe this is partially from the mirroring relations my mom provided to me and how well she was able to adapt to the American culture after having to immigrate here. Without government aid, my family would not be where we are today and that, along with many other events, have had a huge impact on where I stand on the political spectrum.

The subject position I'd like to identify is my dad's. He is very conservative and very, very against homosexuality (we won't discuss what this could possibly mean about him......) which, before cultural studies 101, I found very hard to understand.

I just had questions that I could answer, but the answers weren't consistent with his position on homosexuality. Hadn't he fallen in love before? Why couldn't he try to understand how these people felt?

The only way I could really come to terms with why he rejected homosexuality was to look at his situation through a cultural standpoint.

Culturally, my parents came from a very conservative, patriarchal society where change was/still is very hard to come by (in Thailand and Laos).Through the society that the Hmong people had created around him, he grew up with the idea that "I'm the boss because I am a man. Men marry women to start families in order to pass the family name on, as well as to have cook and clean for me." This is where my dad created his structure of feeling of what the "norm" was. To him, not only was the thought of a man being with another man out of this world, but how would you start a family being homosexual? I know these feelings he had were not influenced by religious scriptures because my dad has probably chased off every missionary that has tried to convert him. Rather, he was influenced by how culture viewed the role of family and its members.

When we got cable for the first time, I remember being in my bedroom and hearing Fox News from the living room. As weird yet straightforward as the situation can get, I believe that the reason why he listens to Fox News is because it embodies language toward sex and sexuality that my dad could understood... rhetoric that his habitus grew up believing, specifically that "marriage should be between a man and a woman." Fox News was able to pick up on viewers like my dad and create that idealizing relationship with them and because Fox News was able to make that connection with my dad, they were also able to push other agendas as well.

In no way does this legitimize or reject his views on homosexuality. I just think it helps us understand why he and others have such strong feelings against it.

Sex Ed

Its awkward, its controversial, and many people think it should be banned. Should Sex Ed be a part of the curriculum in American public schools?

Many people think that sex education has no place in public schools. Some believe it is the role of parents to teach their kids about sex, as part of the overall role of the parents to bring their children up as moral human beings. Others believe that the schools have a responsibility to teach youth about the risks of sexual activity, and how to avoid STDs and unintended pregnancies.

People’s opinions on this topic come from much greater ideological divides than just whether or not classrooms should teach about STD’s. The controversy comes out of greater issues of debate, such as abstinence-only instruction, sexually active youth, abortion, and the morals surrounding birth-control use.

Historically, Sex Ed programs began appearing in public schools around the 1960s in an effort to reduce pregnancies. Since they were founded, these programs have been often strongly opposed by religious groups that believe that youth should be taught in an abstinence-only way.

Traditional Christian teachings tell us that we should only have sex after we are married, and thus people who firmly believe this to be true will have a hard time condoning high-school age kids being taught about sex, when most of them are not even legally old enough to marry. Many religious groups have even claimed that teaching sex education in schools encourages promiscuous behavior. Also, many Christian teachings tell us that birth control is bad and immoral. People who believe this will likely not want their children to be taught how to use condoms by their school teachers.

Also, there is a huge perception in American culture that girls who become pregnant in their teen years are inherently promiscuous, and they are often unfortunately seen as failures. This perception is not strictly religious, but rather just a part of today’s American culture. This wider view of teen pregnancy affects how many people view sex education in schools.

On the other hand, proponents of sex education will say that it gives youth valuable knowledge, and that they deserve to have this knowledge. Many people believe that sex ed lowers the amount of teen pregnancies, and allows women to make safer, more informed decisions with their bodies. Also, many people consider sex ed an important public health initiative because it can potentially help reduce the spread of STDs and HIV.

Those who believe sexuality have a place only in traditional marriage will have a hard time condoning sex ed classes, while people who believe sextuality to be more of an individual freedom will likely support sex education. Also, our cultural stereotypes about sex and about teen pregnancy decide how many people view this issue. Unfortunately, these two views of sex ed can not be reconciled in today’s culture. People’s opinions on these subject come from very strong ideologies that are deep rooted inside of them. The biggest difference is in how people view sexuality.

A simple motto on our currency has led to many debates about the separation of church and state. A common argument brought up by critics is that the motto violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution - which restricts the government from respecting an establishment of religion. The motto was initially challenged in 1970 in Aronow v. United States, but was (and has been ever since) defended by the Supreme Court. Even recently, Congress decided to pass a resolution that "In God We Trust" is the national motto, which triggered another round of disagreements (mainly about the unwise use of time by Congress).

The motto placed upon our currency is claimed by critics to argue that we, as a group of people, trust (or are pushed to trust) in a god defined by the major religion in the United States - Christianity. Although the United States does not have an official religion, Christianity plays a massive role, with approximately 60~75% of Americans claiming themselves to be Christian. Therefore, the motto suits the preferences of the majority - which makes the issue a tough nut to crack for critics.

The represented image displays the current status quo of politics involving religion - while America claims to be a religiously tolerant nation, it still projects God onto its citizens through government issued currency. Religion has even become so powerful in politics that some anti-Obama voters tried to taint his image by claiming he was Muslim (as though it would be a bad thing) in his presidential campaign. The motto helps us understand how large of an issue religion can be in the United States and in politics. It will be very interesting to see how the politics and representation of religion will affect the development of our culture.

Cloning Animals/Humans

No person is alike, and no person has the same belief system. I, myself, believe that cloning animals and humans is not right. I am a religious person, so firstly, I believe that God created each and every person and animal to be as it is. I also believe that cloning contributes to the decline of genetic diversity. Diversity drives evolution, and eliminating characteristics in humans and animals not only makes our world less diverse, but it may mean that competition would be altered and those with maximized traits would soon prevail and be the ultimate human or animal. I also understand that individuals who support and believe cloning is not a negative thing do have a valid reason to.

Although cloning can be considered a destruction of life, cloning can aid the finding of treatments to various diseases and disorders. Cloning also gives an opportunity to create 'spare parts' for those who need transplants or major surgeries. It can help us understand more about organisms' bodies and how they work. It could help us create food for poor countries to help end famine. Individuals who believe cloning is a positive exploration believe it because of these strengths and opportunities it gives to the human civilization, not for the creation of the 'ultimate human.' Scientists and individuals who don't 'live by the bible' may see cloning as something to help and save lives in the future, and that is something very ambitious and admirable.

Believers and non-believers have their own belief systems and morals and this causes disputes between the parties. There are strong arguments on each side, making it all the more difficult to decide between right and wrong. What both sides don't understand is that arguing is only causing more hard feelings and disagreement. Escalating these issues is only causing damage between people in the workplace, and in culture in general. Fighting doesn't always lead to an answer, and in this case it may never will. Respecting the beliefs of each individual is important and sometimes very religious individuals or scientists may not understand that and may tend to cross the line.

Religion

Religion is often a very sensitive subject for discussion because it is so close to us emotionally and is so very difficult to back up with logic or facts. There are people whose religion influences their actions and emotions every day. They hold a strong sense of what is right and wrong based on the teachings of their God and are able to be assured in knowledge of the afterlife. Those with strong religion and atheists like me often have trouble discussing religious matters because religion or a lack of religion is so emotionally charged.

The billboard above makes a claim that the universe is too massive and complex for anything but a God to have created it. Their opinion is obvious and the delivery is not offensive; God’s presence is undeniable. Besides the general assumption that God is male, few of the usual perspectives of culture (gender roles, sexuality, ect) come into play. Science, religion and culture of course play a huge role in the claims of this billboard. The message is against evolution and encourages creationism with the text “The invisible things of God are clearly seen from the creation of the world, so we are without excuse (for denying his existence”. The choice to uppercase just the words “ALMIGHTY GOD” follow a similar pattern of God’s greatness over human’s insignificance. Atheists will look at this billboard and not be offended but will ‘roll’ eyes at the ‘ignorance’ of those who snub scientifically proven evolutionism. Atheists have a difficult time, or at least I do, understanding what it is like to believe so strongly in something without proof, or at least without tangible proof.

Both parties fully believe their beliefs are correct. Not does this cause conflict and useless arguments, but it also halts everyone from moving forward or closer together. If both sides refuse to acknowledge the points of the other party than nothing can be accomplished. Prejudice against those of different religions or against those without religion creates needless conflict. Often our prejudice can create signified images which are interpreted negatively; atheists holding picket signs which cut down the pope parallel Christians picketing for an end to gay marriage. Negative symbols spread farther than peaceful ones which create confusion, misunderstandings and ignorance.  In the end, we are all the same. We are all a little bit ignorant of others different than us, but we can accept that and try and respect varying opinions.